This crazy rear end quote from a Star Wars game preview illustrates my feelings of DS3.

"Red Fly’s representatives arrived at the meeting point early the next day, only to find LucasArts employees rushing Force Unleashed artwork out of the conference room, and replacing it with other Star Wars artworks, including the placement of Sideshow Collectibles statues of Darth Maul and Darth Talon to the table.

A friendly George Lucas entered the room and was eager to hear the pitch from Red Fly’s creatives. “Before they could finish their spiel, Lucas cut them off, stood up, walked over to the statues, rotated them to be facing the same direction, pushed them together, and said ‘They’re friends!’” adds the source. “He wanted these characters to be friends, and to play off of each other. He talked about the show Burn Notice as a reference point. He likened Darth Maul to Sonny fromThe Godfather, and he likened Darth Talon to Lauren Bacall. He actually did an impersonation of her. It was supposedly the weirdest impersonation of a ’40s actress going, ‘Don’t you know how to whistle? Put your lips together and blow.’”

The problem with the idea of Maul and Talon teaming up for a buddy cop-like experience was that they were separated by over 170 years of Star Wars fiction – as ridiculous of an idea as Frédéric Chopin forming a band with Dave Grohl. When this vast time divide was brought up to Lucas’ attention, he brushed off the notion of it not working, and said that it could instead be a descendant of Darth Maul or a clone of him."

Nah, just kidding. Love the output you guys are generating these months, can't wait until the next installment of WOFF & BFSC! Really curious about the guest spots, I hope you managed to snag Austin, he's a cool dude.

I was kinda surprised they didn't bring up the "Andre's the firstborn thing" because of what a big deal that was in Souls lore speculation and him being in DS3 seems to put fuel on the fire.

Very late game, optional area spoilers about DS3: The game explicitly introduces you to the first born and tells you fun stories about why he was kicked out of Lordran and who he hung out with. It just never tells you why the firstborn has such a godawful hitbox, too much HP, and apparently infinite stamina.

I think a lot of my good will towards DS2 lore comes from hearing you guys discuss the ways in which it's cool (aside from the ghost guy in Drangleic Castle, who became my favorite NPC in Souls the moment I talked to him) so it'll be interesting to hear you discuss a souls game whose lore you're not as on board with.

I think a lot of my good will towards DS2 lore comes from hearing you guys discuss the ways in which it's cool (aside from the ghost guy in Drangleic Castle, who became my favorite NPC in Souls the moment I talked to him) so it'll be interesting to hear you discuss a souls game whose lore you're not as on board with.

There are elements of DS3 lore I do like. And playwise, I think it's really remarkable. But lore wise, I can't help but feel that the callbacks, even down to the enemies and items, are taking the place of things that could enrich the existing world and story. There's also an interpretation of the ending, that I'm not crazy about, that more or less mirrors DS1 exactly. If me, or the DLC, or other people who are smarter than I am about interpreting this stuff, doesn't come up with something more compelling than, "Yup, it's literally the same ending as DS1," then what the gently caress.

There are elements of DS3 lore I do like. And playwise, I think it's really remarkable. But lore wise, I can't help but feel that the callbacks, even down to the enemies and items, are taking the place of things that could enrich the existing world and story. There's also an interpretation of the ending, that I'm not crazy about, that more or less mirrors DS1 exactly. If me, or the DLC, or other people who are smarter than I am about interpreting this stuff, doesn't come up with something more compelling than, "Yup, it's literally the same ending as DS1," then what the gently caress.

Some of the callbacks, particularly the ones that take more effort and have more of an actual presence in the game, do work for me, particularly the stuff that's embedded in the architecture. I agree that a lot of the item descriptions and "hey, it's this thing from DS1" gets eye-roll inducing after a while though. And yes, the ending is disappointing.

I just completely marked out for each and every DS1 reference because DS1 is my favorite game. DS2 almost entirely ignoring the lore and setting of DS1 just strengthened that thirst for fan service. Maybe the callback saturation is a BIT too much but nothing ever took me out of the setting, it mostly feels natural to me, much more natural than, for example, Ornstein in DS2. (I love DS2 it's just not what I particularly wanted at the time).

I also don't have any problem with the endings because the endings of these games are pretty meaningless, meaningless in a way that ties into the tonal concepts of the setting. The wheel keeps turning and ultimately the player's actions don't have an effect and it subverts the empowerment fantasy that is expected from Beating A Game. In DS1 you either get duped into a succession of rubes who ritually light themselves on fire or prepare to conquer a dead world while a Rage Against The Machine song plays but functionally both endings are just tiny cut-scenes before you go into New Game + and the cosmos remains a cruel, perpetual torture engine.

edit: added DS1 spoiler tags JUST IN CASE

Murderist fucked around with this message at Apr 26, 2016 around 18:11

I just completely marked out for each and every DS1 reference because DS1 is my favorite game. DS2 almost entirely ignoring the lore and setting of DS1 just strengthened that thirst for fan service. Maybe the callback saturation is a BIT too much but nothing ever took me out of the setting, it mostly feels natural to me, much more natural than, for example, Ornstein in DS2. (I love DS2 it's just not what I particularly wanted at the time).

I also don't have any problem with the endings because the endings of these games are pretty meaningless, meaningless in a way that ties into the tonal concepts of the setting. The wheel keeps turning and ultimately the player's actions don't have an effect and it subverts the empowerment fantasy that is expected from Beating A Game. In DS1 you either get duped into a succession of rubes who ritually light themselves on fire or prepare to conquer a dead world while a Rage Against The Machine song plays but functionally both endings are just tiny cut-scenes before you go into New Game + and the cosmos remains a cruel, perpetual torture engine.

See, I was with you for the first half of the callbacks. it took a while for me to get exhausted. But actively trying to piece together a story amplifies the effect for me. When I was just playing the game, it didn't bother me that much. Now that I'm trolling item descriptions I just keep thinking, "Jesus, again??"

To your second point, I would agree for the 2nd game in the series (and did, even though I think the Aldia ending is brave and awesome and I'm so loving disappointed they didn't follow up on it). But for the 3rd game in the series, the supposed finale, for them to literally just do the same thing they did in the first one feels unsatisfying. If they're underlining the "cycle" theme, it's been underlined enough already.

Agreed that the callbacks work in the architecture. There's one whole wing of the game that does this really hard that I think *nails* it. All of the Irythill stuff 100% works for me. The stuff that doesn't is: oh, look, it's Andrew, oh, look, Kirk is invading, oh, look, it's every single ring from Dark Souls 1.

Ultimately, my disappointment comes from wanting the new stuff, which is genuinely badass, to be more fleshed out and rich. I'm really fascinated with the Lothric royal family and with the Church of the Deep. And there is stuff there to learn but I want more of that and less fluffing.

If me, or the DLC, or other people who are smarter than I am about interpreting this stuff, doesn't come up with something more compelling than, "Yup, it's literally the same ending as DS1," then what the gently caress.

There's something very weird going on thematically with the second ending, at least the version in which you don't bushwhack the Firekeeper, and given the pattern established by Dark Souls 1, Dark Souls 2, and Bloodborne I think it's safe to assume that the DLC will be integral to the game's lore and to making the story feel complete.

This is one of the craziest things I've ever seen you complain about. Most of the rings from Dark Souls 1 were also in Dark Souls 2, or replaced by identical rings which have the same function but their text is replaced by DkS2's madlib lore. This is like complaining that every Final Fantasy has a Cure spell in it or something.

Actually almost every new ring from Dark Souls 2 (like the clutches and fake white/human rings) are also in Dark Souls 3, and there's gotta be at least like 10 new ones on top of that still.

wizard on a water slide fucked around with this message at Apr 26, 2016 around 18:33

Here's every single ring from DS1 except they're not as powerful. Which I guess makes sense because they're ancient and may have diminished in power, but none of the item descriptions really mention that which seems like a missed opportunity.

I agree that the callbacks get a little fatiguing, so much that I just started expecting them to be more and more audacious. I really expected Iron Tarkus to show up at some point, despite being canonically dead maybe? However I'm extremely happy that they were very conservative with a certain character. It's a running joke on BSC but they could've easily made Solaire the end boss or a summon for the end boss and it would've been dumb. The DLC could go there though so we shall see. It's the lowest hanging fruit possible but I have faith they won't pluck it. Mostly.

It's a running joke on BSC but they could've easily made Solaire the end boss

This is a good example of a callback that actually would've made perfect sense and been the good kind of sequel twist, because we have every reason to assume he should have become a Lord of Cinder; it's canonical that he links the fire in his own world if he lives

There's nothing wrong with a sequel being an actual sequel, and while there's definitely a few bits of dumb "fanservice" (that I'm not sure anybody wanted, hence the air quotes) in Dark Souls 3, I also remember people on this forum bitching that Dark Souls 2 had Warriors of Sunlight and the "Praise the Sun" gesture in it because of how much they hated memes, and I get exhausted with the tendency to hate on or dismiss something solely because it makes other people happy (especially when those people nominally belong to an "enemy tribe" like Reddit or NeoGAF in which case they're automatically idiots/autists/creeps/dorks/etc)

I don't actually lump Gary and Kole in that category - there's a big digression in the Portal episode of WOFF about how the reason the cake stuff, companion cube, etc caught on like wildfire is because they were and are genuinely funny - but I find that tendency more annoying than popping into the hub in DkS3 and seeing Andre banging away with his hammer, which imo is the most egregious example of shoehorning something that doesn't belong into the game and not explaining it

There's nothing wrong with a sequel being an actual sequel, and while there's definitely a few bits of dumb "fanservice" (that I'm not sure anybody wanted, hence the air quotes) in Dark Souls 3, I also remember people on this forum bitching that Dark Souls 2 had Warriors of Sunlight and the "Praise the Sun" gesture in it because of how much they hated memes, and I get exhausted with the tendency to hate on or dismiss something solely because it makes other people happy (especially when those people nominally belong to an "enemy tribe" like Reddit or NeoGAF in which case they're automatically idiots/autists/creeps/dorks/etc)

The problem in my opinion is that Dark Souls 2 had relatively obscure references that felt like they made sense for a game set hundreds of years after Dark Souls 1, so when the really blatant stuff popped up like Ornstein or the out of place statue that's just there because the sunlight covenant was popular it stuck out a little. Then we go to DS3 and suddenly it's a much more direct sequel and your old pals and favorite areas are back. I think if the two games had been reversed, with DS2 taking the direct approach and DS3 doing the "echo of the distant past" thing, it'd feel more congruous.

Ultimately, my disappointment comes from wanting the new stuff, which is genuinely badass, to be more fleshed out and rich. I'm really fascinated with the Lothric royal family and with the Church of the Deep. And there is stuff there to learn but I want more of that and less fluffing.

Oh man, agreed on that. Those were both super-interesting and evocative, and I hope that's what the DLC ends up focusing on.

Yeah, I have been pretty baffled by the use of "references" to refer to stuff reappearing from the first game as well. I really feel like if DS2 was not a thing people would not have taken as much notice because DS3 really just feels like a normal sequel with DS2 being the odd one out.

In both series, the first game sets a tone, the second uses recurring theme from the first to build a new story and world, then the third entry almost entirely ignores what the second did in favor of making a direct sequel to the first.

I ordered Galerians and Galerians: Ash for my horror game streams a while back. I'm going to try to put together some regular times to keep up the streaming. That's easier to do now thanks to my change in employment status, but hard because ongoing time commitments are tricky with recording schedules.

Here's every single ring from DS1 except they're not as powerful. Which I guess makes sense because they're ancient and may have diminished in power, but none of the item descriptions really mention that which seems like a missed opportunity.

I agree that the callbacks get a little fatiguing, so much that I just started expecting them to be more and more audacious. I really expected Iron Tarkus to show up at some point, despite being canonically dead maybe? However I'm extremely happy that they were very conservative with a certain character. It's a running joke on BSC but they could've easily made Solaire the end boss or a summon for the end boss and it would've been dumb. The DLC could go there though so we shall see. It's the lowest hanging fruit possible but I have faith they won't pluck it. Mostly.

Here's the thing: Solaire is a lord of cinder and is contained in the Souls of Cinder. It's not really up for debate. He linked the flame in canon. The dumb thing we joked about for years is actually true. It's ridiculous.

zombie's downfall posted:

Gary, you're ridiculous.

Viv, you're being reductive with my point about the rings. Yes, rings reappear frequently in both games, but in DS2, they referenced things in DS2's world and that added to our understanding of that world (this is true whether you, personally, cared about DS2's world or not). In DS3, when they appear, they just restate what the character was in DS1. There's no additional information on 90% of them. You might not have liked the DS2 "madlibs" lore, but if you actually liked what was being referenced, I imagine you'd want to see it rather than see stuff you already know.

'HMS Boromir posted:

The problem in my opinion is that Dark Souls 2 had relatively obscure references that felt like they made sense for a game set hundreds of years after Dark Souls 1, so when the really blatant stuff popped up like Ornstein or the out of place statue that's just there because the sunlight covenant was popular it stuck out a little. Then we go to DS3 and suddenly it's a much more direct sequel and your old pals and favorite areas are back. I think if the two games had been reversed, with DS2 taking the direct approach and DS3 doing the "echo of the distant past" thing, it'd feel more congruous.

This, 100%. Immense periods of history passing and old legends being confused and corrupted makes sense. But everyone in DS3 remembers DS1 stuff like it was yesterday. It's exactly like how in Star Trek The Next Generation they're constantly referencing 20th century pop culture as if the intervening centuries didn't happen. It doesn't make sense in the world, other than because of timey cycle-y dimension-y weirdness that has been done before and isn't really interesting to me anymore. DS3 feels like it takes place about 40 years after DS1. There's no sense of time, scale, etc, which is a direct result of Kirk invading and Andre banging on his hammer.

This Australia Day I would like to give thanks for a worldwide return to sanity, as demonstrated by President Trump, Brexit, Senators Hanson and Leyonhjelm, One Nation outpolling the Greens, and the the demodding of EM.

Not a good time to be a rabid leftist lol.

College Slice

The parts of ds2's story that aren't obvious references or wierd issues with women are a lot more interesting to me than other games in the series. It's got a kinda buddhist view on things, and I think the nihilism, enlightenment via crowns as an escape from death and fire/dark yin-yang stuff appeal to me more than the darker quest narratives and the straightforward focus on corruption.

That is an apt comparison, with the added wrinkle of the narrative that SH2 is the pinnacle of the series, while DS2 is the nadir.

Both of the fan bases are really similar, because both let perfect be the mortal enemy of the good. It's weird that my two favorite series are so fraught.

I think that may be because of the type of creative works they are. The trouble with making something unique and groundbreaking is that it attracts people who expect you to simply be able produce that same magic as if it were a stage act.

The parts of ds2's story that aren't obvious references or wierd issues with women are a lot more interesting to me than other games in the series. It's got a kinda buddhist view on things, and I think the nihilism, enlightenment via crowns as an escape from death and fire/dark yin-yang stuff appeal to me more than the darker quest narratives and the straightforward focus on corruption.

The dragon stuff/covenant has always been about that sort of Buddhist transcendence of the cycle via self-perfection; there's additional stuff in Dark Souls 3 that hammers this idea home (including a related gesture). The theme you're talking about is a part of the whole series.

I just don't get why people think Dark Souls 2's approach to time and history and space is better. It felt like they wrote an original story, set it in a different setting, and then went "oh gently caress, this is supposed to have been a sequel" and sloppily threw in Ornstein, "Praise the Sun", and the Lord Souls without explaining anything to make people go "hey, Dark Souls". Dark Souls 3 is doing a little of that, a little of being an actual sequel (i.e. the same kind of callbacks except to an end), and a little of cribbing designs from previous enemies and areas which is something they've been doing since DkS1 and which at this point is probably also a product of asset reuse because they've turned these dense, awesome games into a yearly franchise.

The dragon stuff/covenant has always been about that sort of Buddhist transcendence of the cycle via self-perfection; there's additional stuff in Dark Souls 3 that hammers this idea home (including a related gesture). The theme you're talking about is a part of the whole series.

I just don't get why people think Dark Souls 2's approach to time and history and space is better. It felt like they wrote an original story, set it in a different setting, and then went "oh gently caress, this is supposed to have been a sequel" and sloppily threw in Ornstein, "Praise the Sun", and the Lord Souls without explaining anything to make people go "hey, Dark Souls". Dark Souls 3 is doing a little of that, a little of being an actual sequel (i.e. the same kind of callbacks except to an end), and a little of cribbing designs from previous enemies and areas which is something they've been doing since DkS1 and which at this point is probably also a product of asset reuse because they've turned these dense, awesome games into a yearly franchise.

Agree to disagree, w/e.

To clarify, I'm not arguing DS2 is a better game and this feeling I have exists outside of comparison to DS2.

I think there are elements of DS3's storytelling that are really misguided in a vacuum. Not compared to 2 or BB or DeS but compared to all of them. Misguided for a Souls game. There are principles of storytelling that are just thrown out the window in 3, and they're some of my favorite things about the series. It's not about my pokemon being this new upcoming pokemon. I'm disappointed, is all.

EDIT: I'm not trying to bait you into continuing to debate. God knows I've had enough dark souls 3 debate today. I'm just clarifying out of my crippling fear of being misunderstood.

I think it's a great thing that the series has the capacity to prompt actual decent conversations about storytelling, and I think that's down to it's overall excellence even in the face of being imperfect. Compare the deficiencies in DS1-3 storytelling with those in the Metal Gear series for example.

Very excited to hear the Bonfire Boys thoughts on the plot as they work through the game. Looks like we'll have a good year ahead.

Compare the deficiencies in DS1-3 storytelling with those in the Metal Gear series for example.

Honestly, I'm not even sure you can compare them, or at least I wouldn't know where to start. They're such fundamentally different things that they don't even share the same language in terms of how they construct their narrative.